Talk:Overcoming homosexuality

"Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexuals through their Christian faith."

I propose changing the wording to reflect the idea that some ex-homosexuals simply become sexually inactive, or effectively asexual. DanH 00:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Also, has anyone left homosexuality due to another faith? Islam, for instance? They have some pretty harsh anti-homosexual laws.Maestro 01:11, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Well, the President of Iran claims there are no homosexuals in his country, so apparently it has occurred. ;-) Learn together 01:28, 30 November 2007 (EST)

The Apostle Paul says that celibacy is no better nor worse than marriage, so it should be clear that lifelong celibacy is an option. DanH 12:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Dissenting views

The point I made wasn't unreasonable. I thought the whole idea of a free form wiki that everyone can edit is that one person doesn't claim ownership of articles. I say this from experience in Wikipedia (Which I have left) and Citizendium. MarcusCicero 22:07, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Mr.Conservative, have you ever met a Homosexual? Just curious. Reasonableperson 18:38, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Just wondering

As I know, there is no scientifical evidences that homosexuality is a decease. So in my opinion, "Overcoming homosexuality" seems to be nonsense, as it cannot be done; a homosexual can tell that (s)he has "converted", but I doubt that it can be possible. Two possible explainations for the experiences from the people in the article:

They thought they were homosexuals, but in fact, they were heterosexual or bisexual all the time, and "overcame" homosexuality.

The reactions for their new lifestyle were so bad that they simply "redecided", and tried to just turn back to normal life again, by saying that they "overcame" homosexuality.

Please don't take this as sign of war or something, I just need to clear this out, as this (following the slogan) is the trustworthy encyclopedia, and it at the same time tends to contain material that is more or less wrong; following rule 1 on this wiki's commandments: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." Efloean 14:15, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

There is verifiable evidence that prayer is a powerful means of overcoming homosexuality and sinful lifestyle habits. Please do not cast aspersions on the trustworthiness of Conservapedia. Disruptive behaviour is not tolerated here. Bugler 04:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I don't say that Conservapedia is untrustworthy, I just try to bring up stuff that I'm wondering about. If you believe that "curing" homosexuality is possible, I would like to see sources/references (preferably scientifical), as you say "There is verifiable evidence that prayer is a powerful means of overcoming homosexuality and sinful lifestyle habits." I see a lot of references to different verses in the Bible (and to things said by the ex-homosexuals), but nothing that can explain it exept religion. I would suggest to change it to more like a theory, or something like "Overcoming homosexuality is a widely accepted possibility among Christians, and there are many examples of homosexuals becoming heterosexual or living in celibate." What do you think? Efloean 13:42, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

There are plentiful examples of cures of homosexuality being effected through prayer. As a new editor, you might like to research these and write an article about it. Bugler 15:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I think I keep stuck to things I know more about (as geography, politics and history), I just came across this article, and though it is a subject I know very little about, something told me that the style it is written in is too inflected by personal opinions (I have actually not heard anyone say to me in person that overcoming homosexuality is possible), and the statements in the article are not affirmed by any agreeing scientists etc. I'm not here to make trouble, I just want to point out that this and many other articles have many weaknesses: Lack of references to agreeing scientists and specialists are often weakening the article's trust – maybe not for everyone, but to most experienced wiki contributors it is striking. Efloean 15:38, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia is intended first and foremost as an educational and moral resource for young people. We value conciseness with accuracy, rather than the endless talk, talk practiced by some so-called online encyclopaedias. You can trust what is written in that article. Bugler 15:43, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

It sounds like his major gripe is that the only evidence being presented is anecdotal by "ex-homosexuals" and quotations from the Bible. Honestly, if this is so, he does have a point. And I do not think he is being disruptive. He's being critical (which is a neutral term) and. well. thinking critically. That's ultimatly a good thing.Jros83 23:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I definitly agree with you, but it isn't that easy when I can't even reply to your answer because my account was blocked for editing the article ... If my edits are not welcome, I want to see what rules I have broken. Efloean 10:15, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Efloean, I was just wondering, did you attend a public school? The reason I ask is because the the word is spelled "disease" and not "decease". By the way, are you an atheist? Are you able to spell the words atheism, atheist, and atheists? I have noticed that Conservapedia atheists often have great difficulty spelling these words. No doubt they attended a public school which indoctrinates schoolchildren into liberalism and atheistic ideologies instead of helping them to master basic skills such as addition and spelling. Conservative 20:26, 24 December 2011 (EST)